Evan Bayh and Political Corruption

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
Ronald Reagan

An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.
Simon Cameron

Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.
Henry Kissinger

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
Mark Twain

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It is widely recognized and generally accepted that politicians are corrupt. We could debate whether this conventional wisdom is actually true or not, but we'll save that debate for another time. Let's just accept as a given that the perception among the general public is that politicians are corrupt, or, at the very least, are predisposed to becoming corrupt. Given that politics and corruption are inseparable, the next best thing to having honest politicians is full and complete disclosure of all their financial dealings. Whenever Congress attempts to go any further than this in a misguided crusade to stamp out corruption, as it did, for example, with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform fiasco of 2002, the results are usually catastrophic, and invariably worse off than they already were. It has been said many times: "Sunshine is the best disinfectant." Transparency, which, among other things, requires financial disclosure, is usually the best protection against political corruption.

Hence we have the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. This law, passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal, requires all members of Congress, each and every year, to disclose all of their relevent financial dealings. The hope is that any potential wrong-doing or potential conflicts of interest will thereby be revealed. Failure to comply is a felony act punishable by fines and disiplinary action by an appropriate authority, such as an Ethics Committee. Unfortunately, there have been numerous instances where public officials have failed to comply with the law and have gone unpunished. Because of lax enforcement some members of Congress believe they can violate the law with impunity. Judicial Watch, a nonpartician watchdog group, reports that Bill and Hillary Clinton, Sen Bill Frist, Sen Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have all had problems with their disclosure reports, with no real investigations or punishments have resulted.

The latest member of Congress with financial disclosure problems is Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. On March 1, 2007 Judicial Watch revealed that he failed to disclose his role as a director of the Evan and Susan Bayh Foundation from 2002, the year he was first named a director, until 2005, the most recent year for which this information is available. You may view Evan Bayh's disclosure filings at the Open Secrets web site. USA Today reports that Bayh spokeswoman Meghan Keck said it was "simply an oversight" that he did not disclose this information. Is it an oversight, or a willful violation of the law? Such foundations can be lucrative tax shelters for the very rich. For example, it has been reported that the Clinton Family Foundation enabled Bill and Hillary to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income. It also invites possible "sweetheart deals" for those that generously contribute to or otherwise assist in the work of the foundation. The Ethics in Government Act was designed to guard against such corruption. Repeated, flagrant violation of the Ethics inGovernment Act has become the norm in Washington, and now we can add Evan Bayh to the long list of politicians that fail to comply with the law until confronted.

Pelosi and other Democrats made ethics and greater transparency a top priority in the 2006 elections. When the Democratic-controlled Congress convened in January, the House changed its ethics rules but did not specifically address financial disclosure rules. The Senate passed an ethics bill earlier this month that would boost penalties for knowingly filing false financial disclosure statements. Unfortunately, there is rarely any investigation into disclosure violations that could establish whether a report was knowingly falsified. "Despite all the ethics reforms, there's still no enforcement," said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor and head of the liberal-leaning Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington.

“Federal disclosure laws are in place for a very good reason – to alert the public to any conflicts of interest and potentially corrupt activity. Too many members of Congress repeatedly ignore disclosure laws with impunity. This has got to stop.” wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Committee should investigate whether Senator Bayh’s failure to disclose his family foundation is a willful violation of the rules and law governing such disclosure.”

Same-Sex Marriage in Indiana

Indiana is a red state. It is the heartland of America -- fly-over country. It is about as wholesome a place as you can find. Musicians and moviemakers frequently make reference to Indiana whenever they want to evoke images of small town America. Indiana is the last place you would expect gay marriage to have any popular support. And, in fact, it has none. However, the will of the public is rarely on the political agenda of the Left, and that is not what the gay marriage movement is about. Gay marriage is just another attempt to use the power of government to impose the belief system of a fringe group upon the public. In this case, unelected activist judges have redefined marriage to include homosexual unions. Furthermore, there is the concern that a federal judge could declare that a legal homosexual marriage in one State must be recognized in other States, even in those States that have outlawed homosexual marriage. It is against this backdrop that the Federal Same Sex Marriage Resolution and an Indiana State Constitutional Amendment are being debated.

Indiana State legislators passed a law banning gay marriage in 1997. Although this law was attacked in the courts by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union it has withstood the challenges. Nonetheless, Indiana lawmakers recognized that without a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage the court challenges would not end. Enter SJR-7, the proposed State constitutional Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA). It is currently working its way through the Indiana legislature, and is expected to come before Indiana voters in 2008 as a ballot referendum. This is the democratic process that would allow the will of the public to prevail. State Senator Brandt Hershman was quoted as saying "The decision before us today is simply, do you trust the citizens of the state of Indiana to decide the future of one of the most fundamental building blocks of our society?" Naturally, the Left is opposed to putting this before the voters. Public opinion polls in Indiana have shown that a large majority of Hoosiers are opposed to gay marriage. The Left would perfer to continue to fight this in the courts where they have a chance of finding a sympathetic judge that will impose their will upon the people. It has been noted that "Virtually every major newspaper in the state has now editorialized against SJR-7." Surprising? I think not. Across the country, a DOMA has never been defeated in an open popular vote.

Now, even if SJR-7 were to prevail, it would not be the final word on the issue. Federal law trumps State law, and a Federal judge can overturn a State constitutional amendment. Indeed, in 2005 a federal judge in Nebraska overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. So the only way to put this issue to rest would be a US Constitutional Amendment. This has been attempted twice, once in 2004 and most recently in 2006. On both occasions Congress failed to pass the proposed amendement. It should be noted that Evan Bayh voted in support of gay marriage on both occasions.

Speaking of Evan Bayh, where does he stand on the Indiana DOMA? Despite voting in support of gay marriage twice, he has refused to take any position on it. He was specifically questioned about his position on it by a group of liberal Indiana bloggers during his short-lived Presidential campaign, and he said he had not yet read the amendment so he could not take a position on it. This is laughable. Constitutional amendments, unlike other pieces of legislation, are usually brief statements composed of just a few sentances. DOMAs have become standardized, the wording is virtually identical from State to State. Here is the proposed Indiana Marriage Amendment:

Section 38.
(a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Evan Bayh and Intellectual Property Rights

As we move into the Brave New World of the Information Era, a battle is brewing between those industries that profit from restricting the free flow of knowledge and information and those that are now making information freely available over the internet. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are at the forefront of this battle. Our government has equipped industry with tools such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that have empowered them to reach deeper into our personal lives in the name of protecting their copyright entitlements. This has resulted in some blatant abuses of innocent citizens at the hands of corporate giants. Below are a few examples of the heavy-handed techniques employed in the name of copyright protection.

• Viacom issued 100,000 DMCA takedown notices aimed at YouTube users. Among the 100,000 videos targeted for takedowns was a home movie shot in a BBQ joint, a film trailer by a documentarian, and a music video about karaoke in Singapore. None of these contained anything owned by Viacom. The DMCA takedown process invites this kind of abuse. You don't need a proven copyright infringement claim to fire off a cease-and-desist letter and have online speech immediately taken down. Most online speakers don't have the resources to defend themselves, especially when facing enormous monetary damages if sued when they counter-notice under the DMCA.
  
  
• Working with the RIAA, the Georgia police recently raided the studios of Aphilliates Music Group and arrested DJ Drama and DJ Cannon over the hip hop "mixtape" CDs that the studio is famous for. These are the same mixtapes that the record labels often pay DJs to create to promote their own hip hop artists.
  
  
• ReplayTV was a personal video recorder with user-friendly features. It allowed you to skip over commercials and send recorded TV programs to another ReplayTV device. Former Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner called skipping commercials "theft" -- and evidently the major motion picture studios agree. They sued the manufacturers of ReplayTV out of existence, and the company that purchased it buckled under and removed the contested features.
  
  
• Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) is a US federal law enacted in 1999 to protect the owners of trademarks from abuse by domain name cybersquatters. In PETA v. Doughney, the defendant registered peta.org and created a website entitled “People Eating Tasty Animals.” The domain name registrant contacted P.E.T.A. and informed the organization that if it wanted the domain name, “it should make him an offer.” The Court found that there was a bad faith intent to profit, and therefore, P.E.T.A.’a rights to its trademark outweighed the defendant’s right to free speech.
  

While there are many such examples, this brief list gives a pretty clear idea of how far the pendulum has swung in favor of intellectual property (IP) owners. Regretably, the vigorous pursuit of IP rights has inevitably led to the loss of some individual liberty and to the harassment of some innocent individuals.

Enter Evan Bayh and the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act (IPREA). Writing in his blog, he introduces the act in this way: “I have introduced legislation that would elevate the way we treat intellectual property theft to the same level as money laundering and other black market crimes.” What exactly does that mean? There are 3 key things that the IPRE would do:

1. Create an interagency Intellectual Property Enforcement Network
   
2. Establish a mechanism for federal law enforcement to work with state and local law enforcement and the private sector
   
3. Create an international enforcement team made up of qualified countries to track and arrest IP criminals across international borders
   

Lets look at each of these in turn.

Intellectual Property Enforcement Network

The legislation calls for the elimination of the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC) and would replace it with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Network (IPEN).

NIPLECC was established in 1999. The Council's mission is to establish “policies, objectives, and priorities concerning international intellectual property protection and intellectual property law enforcement.” The Council is composed of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Justice and State, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement.

The mission of IPEN is to establish “policies, objectives, and priorities concerning international intellectual property protection and intellectual property law enforcement.” IPEN composition is very similar to NIPLECC, including representatives from the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Justice and State, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement.

So, what’s the real difference between NIPLECC and IPEN? If there is any difference, it’s the emphasis on interagency cooperation. Reading the language of the bills, one gets the impression that there has been some dissatisfaction with the degree of cooperation among the various governmental agencies involved in IP enforcement, and the IPEN is an attempt to legislate cooperation.

Mechanism for federal law enforcement to work with state and local law enforcement and the private sector

You read that right: private sector. The bill does not give any indication as to what this mechanism would be, but how would you like to give the MPAA legislated authority to assist the feds in beefing-up their enforcement of their IP rights? That is precisely what we are looking at here. Evan Bayh’s bill would seek to “establish a formal process for consulting with companies, their designated representatives, and industry associations to strengthen enforcement.” Good God! Do we really need the feds consulting with the MPAA regarding enforcement of their IP rights? Isn’t the situation draconian enough already?

Create an international enforcement team

Not content with merely fighting suspected copyright infringers at home, this bill would expand enforcement of copyright and trademark law beyond our national borders, thereby enabling US corporations to go after suspected infringers in foreign countries. The international enforcement team would be required by law to exchange information with foreign entities regarding suspected offenders. Furthermore, the IPREA mandates that we establish “a formal process for consulting with companies, industry associations, labor unions, and other interested groups in [foreign] countries” regarding enforcement of copyright laws. This is scary... very scary.

I don't doubt the need to cooperate with our trading partners in protecting IP... In fact, we already are! The US is already a signatory to numerous international treaties designed to protect IP, such as the 1994 World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Specifically, TRIPS lays out requirements that WTO-member nations must meet regarding copyright protections, enforcement procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution procedures.

Then there is the United Nations-sponsored World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It was established in 1964 and is dedicated to developing “a balanced and accessible international intellectual property system”. WIPO consists of 184 member nations, including the USA, that work together to achieve strategic goals, including the development of international IP laws and standards.

With all of this already in place, why does Evan Bayh want the United States to unilaterally set up a new international IP task force? It simply does not make any sense.

Conclusion

Copyright, trademarks, patents, and other forms of IP are important and deserving of legal protection. But, as we have seen, globalization and the changing technological environment have caused some corporations to feel threatened. They have pressured government to give them additional protections, including stricter IP regulations. This is wrong and counterproductive. Excessive IP regulation leads to “intellectual protectionism”, increasing economic costs and decreasing efficiency. Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate in economcs, has said "It has become increasingly clear that excessively strong or badly formulated intellectual property rights may actually impede innovation". The IPREA is a clear example of just such excessively strong and badly formulated policy.

Furthermore, there is simply no tangible need for this additional regulation. IPEN is simply a reconstituted NIPLECC. International IP organizations, such as TRIPS and WIPO, already exist and are carrying out the role of an "international enforcement team". And finally, we do not need and do not want the government confering with the MPAA and others in the private sector on matters of IP enforcement. The net effect of the IPREA is simply to further empower industry to enforce these laws. But at what cost to individual liberty? We have already seen the havoc that groups such as the RIAA and MPAA can create with existing laws. Do we really want to empower them further?

Bayh first introduced the IPREA in 2005, and it went nowhere. However, with the Democrats now controlling Congress, it is possible that Bayh will have better luck moving his legislation forward. Let's hope not.

Evan Bayh - A moderate, hawkish veep?

Since Evan Bayh has dropped out of the 2008 Presidential race, there has been quite a buzz about his prospects as a potential Veep candidate. There is often talk of his formidable fundraising capabilities. For example, this The Hill article points out that he had managed to raise over $10 million on his aborted Presidential bid. The article quotes former FEC chair Michael Toner as saying “Bayh could be exactly the kind of vice presidential candidate who could be most valuable in 2008 because of his established fundraising abilities.” The Indiana-based South Bend Tribune, commenting about a possible Clinton-Bayh ticket remarked about his “solid campaign organization” and his $10 million dollar war chest.

Almost every time his name is mentioned, the myth about Bayh being politically moderate is repeated. The above cited Hill article quotes former DNC chair Joe Andrew putting it this way: “He was always a top-tier candidate and he should be for reasons of message and his moderate stance.” A recent Human Events article opining about a Hillary running mate states “Add a moderate running mate like Sen. Evan Bayh (D.-Ind.) and Indiana could be up for grabs, too.”

What fuels this myth about a moderate Evan Bayh? A New Yorker article suggests that it his hawkish position on the use of military force, describing Bayh as “a semi-obscure, non-dazzling senator whose positions, in particular on the Iraq war, have been fairly hawkish.”

I set out to determine if there was any merit to the myth that Evan Bayh is “hawkish”. As usual, I used his voting record in the US Senate as reported by vote-smart.org. There is often in politics a disconnect between perception and reality. When it comes to legislators the only thing that really counts (in my opinion) is their voting record. If Bayh really is hawkish, it should show up in his voting record on military issues, right? Vote-smart.org has categorized all the key votes of the Senate into categories (such as military issues, immigration issues, etc). So I looked at his 2006 voting record in the following categories to see if any pattern emerged: Military, National Security, and Immigration.

MILLITARY ISSUES

There were 7 key Senate votes on military issues. In all but one case, Bayh voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. There is certainly nothing here that makes Evan stand out from the crowd. Here is a quick run down of those 7 votes

Habeas Review Amendment
Only one Democrat (Ben Nelson – NE) sided with Republicans against an amendment that would have allowed terror suspects to file habeas corpus petitions in court. Bayh voted with all the remaining Democrats supporting the rights of suspected terrorists.

Military Commissions Amendment
This amendment would have prohibited the establishment of new military commissions after December 31, 2011. No Democrat voted against this amendment. Fortunately, the Republican majority passed this legislation retaining the President’s power to establish such commissions, which have been used by Presidents since Revolutionary War days.

Oversight of CIA Interrogation and Detention Amendment
This amendment would have required the Director of the CIA to report to the congressional intelligence committees every three months on detention, interrogation and rendition programs. Again, not a single Democrat (not even Evan Bayh) voted against this silly amendment.

Military Commissions Act of 2006
The Act's stated purpose is to "facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes." There were 12 Democrats that voted for the passage of this important legislation. Evan Bayh was NOT among them.

Cluster Munitions Amendment
This amendment would have prohibited any funding from going to cluster munitions, unless it is clearly specified that such munitions will not be allowed near civilian populations. There were 15 Democrats that voted against this amendment. Here is the single instance of Bayh breaking with the majority of Democrats on military issues and voting with Republicans to defeat this amendment.

Troop Redeployment Amendment
This amendment would have required the President to withdraw troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. Only 12 Senators, all Democrats, voted in support of this amendment. Bayh was not among these left-wing whackos. Does that make him hawkish?

Military Funding and Tax Cuts Amendment
Vote on a motion to waive the budget act in order to adopt an amendment that appropriates $47.27 billion to the military and repeals the extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends to 2010 back to 2008. Only one Democrat voted against this crazy scheme – the hawkish Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Okay, so we clearly see that there is nothing in his voting record on military issues during the course of 2006 to distinguishes Evan Bayh as a hawk. Lets move on to national security issues. Perhaps there we can find a more moderate, more hawkish voting record there.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Vote-smart.org lists 7 key votes on national security issues in 2006. Again, Bayh voted with the majority of Democrats in 6 of these 7 votes. Lets take a look at them.

Security of Cargo Containers Amendment
An amendment that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan for guaranteeing 100 percent of all cargo containers that pass through U.S. ports are scanned. Only 2 Democrats (Ben Nelson-NE and Mary Landrieu-LA) joined Republicans to defeat this amendment.

National Security Amendment
Vote on a motion to waive the Budget Act in order to adopt the recommendations of the 911-Commission Report. This time 3 Democrats (Ben Nelson-NE, Bill Nelson-FL, Mark Pryor-AR) joined Republicans to defeat this amendment.

Rail and Transit Security Amendment
A motion to waive the Budget Act in order to spend $1.1 billion for transit security programs including research and development of bomb detection technology. Two Democrats (Ben Nelson-NE, Kent Conrad-ND) joined Republicans to defeat this bill.

USEMA Amendment
Vote to adopt an amendment that creates the United States Emergency Management Authority under the Department of Homeland Security to replace the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This bill was adopted with only 10 Senators opposing it, 8 of whom were Democrats, none of whom were Evan Bayh.

FEMA Amendment
An amendment that designates FEMA as independent and separate from the Department of Homeland Security and authorizes the President to appoint the director of FEMA. This is the one vote in the National Security arena where Evan Bayh broke with the majority of his party. He joined with 13 other Democrats and voted to keep FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security. Was this hawkish? Does this vote distinguish Evan Bayh as a moderate?

USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization
Vote to adopt a conference report that extends the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct “roving wiretaps” and access certain business records through December 31, 2009, and makes the remaining 14 provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. Only 9 Democrats voted against the Patriot Act, Bayh was not one of them.

USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization
Vote to invoke cloture on the Patriot Act conference report so it could be voted upon. All Senate Democrats voted against cloture, including Bayh.

The only time Bayh broke with his party on National Security issues was on the FEMA Amendment. Here the idea was to remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland security. Some think it would function more effectively as an independent agency, others do not. In the end, it was left where it was and simply renamed the United States Emergency Management Authority. Anyhow, I fail to see how this one break with the Democratic Leadership distinguishes Bayh in any way. But there is still hope. There was one other topic that is related to national security that might show off Evan Bayh’s hawkish tendencies – Immigration.

IMMIGRATION ISSUES

2006 was a busy year for immigration reform. Vote-smart.org lists 12 key immigration-related votes. Many people consider immigration reform to be intimately related to national security, so it’s worth looking to see just how hawkish Bayh’s voting record might be on immigration reform. Well, the news is not good for folks that consider Bayh to be a moderate – Bayh voted with the majority of Democrats in each of the 12 immigration reform bills to pass through the Senate in 2006. I won’t bore you with the details of each, you can check them out for yourself at vote-smart.org if you are really interested.

CONCLUSION

It’s hard to imagine why anyone who happens to vote the same as the majority of other Democrats is perceived as a moderate (much less a hawk), unless you happen to think that the way most Democrats vote is moderate. Ahh… maybe now we are getting somewhere. If you happen to think that Democrats are, in general, moderates and Republicans are, by and large, extremists, then you might naturally think that anyone that simply follows the herd the way Evan Bayh does and votes with the majority of Senate Democrats almost every single time is a moderate. Now I get it.

Evan Bayh Decides Not to Seek Democratic Nomination for President

Great News!

I read this morning that Evan Bayh will not be running for President in 2008. While I don't think my blog post was the deciding factor in his decision, it probably didn't hurt matters either :)

Evan Bayh - Super Fraud!

I live in Indiana, and I am a libertarian. I support small government, individual libery, and free markets. I tend to vote Republican, not because I am conservative, but because their views line up with mine better than the views of Democrats.

One of my US Senators is Evan Bayh. He gets elected from Indiana because he masquerades as a moderate. Indiana is a very conservative state, and does not tend to vote for left-wing liberals. If I had Edward "Swimmer" Kennedy or Hillary Clinton as a senator, I would be less upset than I currently am because if you vote for them you know exactly what you are voting for. But, with Bayh, he projects the image of a moderate, when in reality he is as far out on the political left as Kennedy and Clinton.

Here are some statistics on his voting record from Project Vote-Smart. The ratings for Ted Kennedy, a well-known and widely recognized liberal, are given for comparison.

• Abortion: NARAL Pro-Choice America 100% support in 2004. (Kennedy: 100%)
  
  
• Family and Children Issues: Family Research Council 0%in 2004. (Kennedy: 0%)
  
  
• Gun Issues: Gun Owners of America 0% in 2005. (Kennedy: 0%)
  
  
• Property Issues: American Land Rights Association 11% in 2003. (Kennedy: 0%)
  
  
• Labor: AFL-CIO 100% in 2004. (Kennedy: 100%)
  

See much difference? More recently, Bayh (and 12 other extremist liberal Democrats) voted AGAINST confirmation of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State, AGAINST closure on the nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the UN (twice), AGAINST John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and, most recently, AGAINST Samuel Alito as Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. It should come as a surprise to no one that this mirrors the voting record of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and the other most extreme liberals in the Senate. How is that for obstructionism?

Indiana can do better. We need to work to replace Bayh with a less extreme, less partisan, more thoughtful Senator in 2010.

Guns Saving Lives

I read with great distress today the sad story of the young Texas girl that was abducted and murdered this week. Given that I have two teenage sons that are close in age to this woman, I can sympathize with the grief that the woman's family must be going through.

My interest in the case compelled me to click through several versions of the story on Google News. I read in some of the latest accounts of the case that a suspect had been arrested when he appeared at a hospital with a gun shot wound. A gun shot wound? More clicking... What's up with that?

Finally, I come across the Chicago Sun-Times version of the story that explains what the other stories did not (coincidence? I think not.) - "A man at the RV park told authorities he had shot a man who had pulled a gun on him and demanded money."

Thank God that this man was carrying a gun. Otherwise, not only might he have been this murder's next victim, but he would still be at large, probably killing and robbing other innocent people.

We are very lucky that we live in a country where law-abiding citizens can still carry guns.